Geçmişten Günümüze Siyaset Felsefesi: Şimdi Nerede?

1950’lerde siyaset teorisinin en önemli isimleri siyaset felsefesinin öldüğünü ilan etti. Bu malumun ilamı olsa da aynı zamanda siyaset teorisinde yeni bir dönemin başladığının da işaretiydi. Bu makale, siyaset felsefesinin ölme noktasına nasıl geldiğini anlamlandır-maya çalışırken, siyaset teorisi ve siyaset bilimi ile ilişkisinin değişim ve gelişimini tarih-sel olarak irdelemekte ve günümüz dünyasındaki konumunu sorgulamaktadır. Bu kap-samda siyaset felsefesinin Antik Yunan’la başlayan serüveninde geçirdiği önemli dönüm noktalarını, özellikle pozitivizm etkisi ile bilimler hiyerarşisinde kendine yer bulma çaba-sını ve davranışçı ekolün disiplindeki en baskın paradigma olarak ortaya çıkmasıyla bu çabanın disiplini kendi içinde nasıl keskin bir ayrıma sürüklediğini incelemektedir. Siya-set teorisinin ampirik yaklaşıma teslim olduğu savına karşı, bu makalede içinde yaşadı-ğımız çağın yeni sorunlarıyla baş edebilmek için yüzümüzü yeniden normatif yaklaşıma çevirip çevirmeyeceğimiz tartışılmakta ve siyaset felsefesinin artık ömrünü tamamladı-ğını iddia edenlere karşı siyaset felsefesine ihtiyacımız olup olmadığı araştırılmaktadır.

Political Philosophy: Now and Then

In the 1950s, the most influential philosophers of political theory declared that political philosophy was dead. Although this was an announcement of the well known fact, it was also a sign that a new era had begun in political theory. This article aims to uncover how political philosophy came to the point of death and how the relationship of political philosophy with political theory and political science evolve and aims to ques-tion the place of political philosophy in today's world. In this context, this article exam-ines the important turning points of political philosophy in its historical adventure started with Ancient Greece, especially its struggle to place itself in the hierarchy of sciences under the effect of positivism, and how this effort led the discipline to a sharp distinction within itself (between science and philosophy), with the emergence and the development of the behaviouralism as the most dominant paradigm in the discipline. Against the ar-gument that political theory has dominated by the empirical approach, in this article it is discussed whether we should turn our face to the normative approach again in order to cope with the new problems of the new age we live in, and it is investigated whether we need political philosophy against those who claim that political philosophy has reached its end.

PDF

___

Adcock, R. ve Bevir, M. (2010). “Political Science”. The History of the Social Sciences since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Almond, G. (1998). “Political Science: The History of the Discipline”. A New Handbook of Political Science (Ed. Robert E. Goodin ve Hans-Dieter Klingemann), Oxford Publications. Bachkhouse R. ve Fontaine, P. (2010). The History of the Social Sciences since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baker, K. L., Hajjar, S. G. ve Schenker, A. (1972). “A Note on Behavioralists and Post-Behavioralists in Contemporary Political Science”. PS, 5(3), 271-273.
Barry, B. (1980). “The Strange Death of Political Philosophy”. Government and Opposition,15(3‐4), 276-288.
Berlin, I. (1999). “Does Political Theory Still Exist”. Concepts and Categories: Philosophical Essays. (Ed. H. Hardy). Princeton University Press, 143-172.
Dahl, R. A. (1961). “The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Monument to a Successful Protest”. Fifth World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Paris.
Dahl, R. A. (1958). “Political Theory: Truth and Consequences”. World Politics, 11(1), 89-102.
Easton, D. (1953). The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
Easton, D. (1969). “The New Revolution in Political Science”. The American Political Science Review, 63(4), 1051-1061.
Grant, E. (2007). A History of Natural Philosophy: From the Ancient World to the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gulbenkian Komisyonu (1996). Sosyal Bilimleri Açın. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları. Iggers, G. G. (1995). “The History and Meaning of the Term”. Journal of the History of Ideas, 56(1), 129-152.
Laslett, P. (1956). Introduction to Philosophy, Politics and Society. (Eds. P. Laslett ve W. G. Ruciman). Oxford: Blackwell.
Malczewski, E. (2013). “Durkheim’s Sui Generis Reality and The Central Subject Matter of Social Science”. Social Theories of History and Histories of Social Theory Current Perspectives in Social Theory, Cilt 31, 161-175.
Maxwell, N. (2004). Is Science Neurotic. London: Imperial College Press.
Maxwell, N. (2014). Global Philosophy: What philosophy Ought to Be. UK: Imprint Academic.
Mendus, S. (2017). “Contingency in political philosophy”. Philosophia, 45, 477-486.
Morrice, D. (1996). Philosophy, Science and Ideology in Political Thought. New York: Macmillan Press.
Mudde C. (2004). “The Populist Zeitgeist”. Government and Opposition, 39(4), 542-563.
Pasquino, G. (2015). “Political Philosophy and Political Science: Complex Relationships”. Revista Española de Ciencia Política, 37, 15-29.
Popper, K. R. (1957). The Poverty of Historicism. Boston: The Beacon Press.
Sabine, G. H. (1939). “What is a Political Theory?”. The Journal of Politics, 1(1), 1-16.
Sartori, G. (1974). “Philosophy, Theory and Science of Politics”. Political Theory, 2(2), 133-162.
Strauss, L. (1957), “Political Philosophy”. The Journal of Politics, 19(3), 343-368.
Strauss, L. (2017), Politika Felsefesi Nedir? (Çev. S. Zelyüt). İstanbul: Öteki Yayınları.
Wagner, P. (2001). A History and Theory of the Social Sciences: Not All That is Solid Melts. London: Sage Publications.
Winch, P. (2003). The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy. 2. Baskı. London: Routledge.

ISSN: 1300-1795
Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
Başlangıç: 1968
Yayıncı: -

Arşiv

Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Yerel Yönetimlerin Mali Performansında Belediye Başkanı Niteliği ve Politik Bütçe Döngüsünün Etkisi

Mustafa KAHVECİ, Cemal SALMAN